Any other information that you think is important for us to know about you or your current situation:

Has the debt collector or attorney done any of the following? They are threatening to sued me / They did sue me / They sued me in a county that I did not live in a the time the suit was filed

If the above does not pertain to your circumstances, please explain in detail what your circumstances are and how we can help

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

NOTICE: This office does not represent you with regard to the matters set forth by you herein in this information sheet or discussed during your consultation unless and until, both you and the Attorney execute a written Agreement for Representation and the agreed upon retainer fee is received by the Attorney. Please be advised, that any and all existing due dates, deadlines, statutory obligations and/or rights that may be related to any matters addressed above, will be solely your responsibility, until and unless we have expressly in writing agreed to represent your interest.
At this point, our office does not agree to represent you. This includes not representing you with regard to the matter set forth by you on this information sheet, nor any other matters you may discuss with the Attorney during your consultation.
If your legal problem(s) involve a potential lawsuit, it is important that you realize a lawsuit must be filed within a certain period of time called a Statute of Limitations. Therefore, the Attorney strongly urges you to immediately consult with another attorney to protect your rights.
The Attorney’s decision not to represent you should not be taken by you as an expression regarding the merits of your case.

On July 3, 2018, Judge Birotte Jr. of the Central District of California denied a motion to dismiss filed by Ditech that argued our client was not removed from the home mortgage loan even though the lawsuit alleges that Ditech undertook the specific actions of removing her name as a customer and signatory to a modification agreement entered into by the ex-husband. Ditech argued that the modification agreement contains a clause that shows the underlying loan still applies in full force as against our client. However, California law specifically holds that any inconsistent terms between the modification agreement and the underlying agreement are replaced by the modification agreement. Our position was that the modification agreement only applies between Ditech and the ex-husband, because it is a basic principal of contract law that someone cannot be held liable to something they did not agree to, and therefore any term in the modification agreement that shows the original note still applies in full force only applies to Ditech and the ex-husband subject to the inconsistent terms in the modification agreement.

The Court agreed with our allegations, ruling that Ditech’s actions in removing our client’s name as a customer creates at least an inference worthy of discovery and litigation that Ditech intended to remove our client from the loan altogether, and that when Ditech continued reporting to the credit reporting agencies that our client remains obligated upon the loan in the full amount then Ditech furnished false/inaccurate/misleading information as against our client. Furthermore, Judge Birotte also agreed that when Ditech continued to call our client directly seeking payment after the ex-husband went into default, Ditech engaged in unlawful debt collection in violation of the Rosenthal Act.